Tippett!!

[jono2707]

Thread extension triggered. Yay.

Hope we're not paying too much though.

[Mug Punter]

We should remember that these incentive provisions were made before we knew Buddy was on his way, so they are likely to trigger an extension with a big paycheck. I suppose we could say that we also knew about the possibility of the extension when we signed Buddy. I only make this point to say that we will have a number of players now that are probably on pretty fat paychecks and it may impact what we can do regarding free agency and contract negotiations with existing players.

As you state, we would have factored in the possibility of the Tippett option when we signed Buddy.

With Parker and Hanners both on pretty juicy deals as well you'd think our cap space would be pretty tight.

The obvious target if we have to find some cap space would be Mitchell who is apparently on $500,000 a year which to me is still massive overs. So, that would absorb Tippetts salary with any balance being soaked up by a cap increase. Or if we have a bit more room to move then perhaps we could offer Mitchell a back-ended deal that increases in 2018 and 2019 after McVeigh and Jack retire or accept reduced deals....

For next three years Buddy and Tippett will take uop approx. 20% of our cap space. Cap is $10,360,000 for 2016.

I'm putting some broad assumptions here
Two Stars forwards (Buddy and Tippett) - $2,000,000
Five Tier 1 Midfielders (Parker, Hanners, Mitchell, Jack, McVeigh) $2,500,000 (average of $500,000 per season)
Six Tier 2 players (Reid, Reg, Ted, Rohan, Sinclair, Smith) $2,400,000 (average of $400,000 per season)
Four Tier 3 players (Lloyd, McGlynn, Laidler and Rampe) $1,200,000 (average of $300,000 per season)
Five Tier 4 players (Harry, Towers, Jones, Robbo, Talia) $1,000,000 (average of $200,000 per season)

That's about $9.1M on our top 22 with the remaining. Now that leaves about 1.3M for our remaining 16 squad members assuming I haven't forgotten any high earners. Some will be on a little more than miminum wage like Sam I expect and some will be on the bare minimum.

Clearly we run a wage structure now that is very much tailored at the elite level. Players pay their apprenticeship and take the minimum wage because they get quickly upgraded to a "good wage" at Tier 3 or 4 with established players then getting the big money third contract that sets them up financially from the ages of about 22 or 23 once they've had 5 years and hopefully 60+ games in the system.

Now, unless we've got heavily backended contracts, and I hope we don't because they come and bit us big time, then we have some storms brewing quickly. There's a good chance at least Heeney, Mills, Hewett and Towers and one other bolter could up for very big pay increases at the end of this year as they go from squad to Tier 3 or 4. Let's say we need at least an extra million a year to pay these guys their market worth in 2017.

Sure we have retirements. McGlynn and Richards are where we'll save perhaps $700,000 but some of that will be caught by bracket creep from existing contracts but not all.

I just think we're in a situation at the end of this year where we'll have to let a required player go because of salary cap pressures. A lot of us thought it would be achieved by Tippett not staying post 2016 but that's not the case. So unless we really mortgage the future with a ridiculously back ended deal , and I hope we don't, then Mitchell seems the most likely target.

I don't claim to have any knowledge of player contract detrails btw just based on what gets bandied in the press.

This isn't a criticism of the club in any way, just a commercial reality. Long term I think this will be a one off as our long term locking in of talent combined with our player age profiles and salary cap increase should avoid the need for any future sacrifices

[Meg]

MP, you haven't factored in the amount that can be paid under Additional Services Agreements. This is a total of at least $1,022,000 for 2016 (as set out in the still current collective bargaining agreement - CBA). We know that a 'significant' amount of Buddy's salary package (description used by the Swans) is paid in the form of an ASA. I wouldn't be surprised if Tippett also has an ASA. He does seem to do quite a bit of promotional work for the Swans. Adding that $1m in eases some of the pressure you are describing.

Also, negotiations are supposed to be concluded for a new CBA by the end of June this year, to replace he current one which will expire end October 2016. I believe the broadcast contract delivers the AFL a considerable increase in revenue from 2017, and I expect the players' association will want the players to share in that increase. So I think the Swans are expecting the TPP and ASA totals to increase, possibly significantly, from 2017.

[goswannies]

The obvious target if we have to find some cap space would be Mitchell who is apparently on $500,000 a year which to me is still massive overs. So, that would absorb Tippetts salary with any balance being soaked up by a cap increase. Or if we have a bit more room to move then perhaps we could offer Mitchell a back-ended deal that increases in 2018 and 2019 after McVeigh and Jack retire or accept reduced deals....

Poor Tom. On the trade table again. He's just 23 & starting to consistently rack up sizeable numbers in the seniors in a pretty solid midfield & he's still overpaid. At least he's adding to the Tippett thread

[KTigers]

MP, I think you forgot our best player, Kennedy.....

[Mug Punter]

MP, I think you forgot our best player, Kennedy.....

Indeed I have, how very careless, I knew I forgot someone

These numbers weren't meant to be treated as fact but all forgetting JPK shows is that however you massage my analysis we must have some massive squeeze in the cap.

I believe our approach to the cap that allows us to keep a large amount of elite players is to have a good 15-16 players on close to minimum wage. The players would be aware of this and they'd know the drill - you get minimum wage and the privilege of being in an AFL programme until you have proved yourself.

Prove yourself worthy of the shirt, get a few games under your belt and you'll get a second contract at a decent whack (say $200K - 300K a year) but you've still got some work to do. Establish yourself as a tier 1 or 2 player and you're up for a long term contract of $400K plus for 4 plus years that can set you up for life after football. And in your late 20s you sign a final contract at good coin but maybe a bit below your main one that sets you up long term.

Mitchell has bucked that trend because we had to pay overs because GWS was going around like the knobs they are offering stupid money for a 17 year old. I like Mitchell but I'm struggling to see how we can keep him if we want to shell out the coin to keep Heeney, Mills, Towers and Hewett because they will rightly demand a decent pay rise next year. Mitchell is the only player coming off contract who'd have any potential contract value to speak of where we can save either. And don't forget the loss of COLA, whether people here like to acknowledge it or not, will also start to feed through to higher salaries.

Even this year, to accommodate Buddy's salary going up by $500K and the new deals for Hanners et al, we had Goodes, Pyke , Bird and Shaw leaving (I'll assume Jetta and Sinclair were a like for like swap). Even at modest salaries those 4 would have been on a combines salary of well over $1,000,000. This year we only have Benny and Ted.

The only way we can afford him, IMO, is for him to be reasonable in his demands reflecting the massive overs he has been on, and for us to back end his deal which we could probably get away with if we haven't stupidly backended the other deals. In the end I think we'll be able to offer a reasonable deal but probably one that the likes of Carlton would be able to trump by a long way, in the end it will be what drives young Tom in his career. If I was him I'd re-sign on a three year deal and then aggressively explore free agency

[Mug Punter]

MP, you haven't factored in the amount that can be paid under Additional Services Agreements. This is a total of at least $1,022,000 for 2016 (as set out in the still current collective bargaining agreement - CBA). We know that a 'significant' amount of Buddy's salary package (description used by the Swans) is paid in the form of an ASA. I wouldn't be surprised if Tippett also has an ASA. He does seem to do quite a bit of promotional work for the Swans. Adding that $1m in eases some of the pressure you are describing.

Also, negotiations are supposed to be concluded for a new CBA by the end of June this year, to replace he current one which will expire end October 2016. I believe the broadcast contract delivers the AFL a considerable increase in revenue from 2017, and I expect the players' association will want the players to share in that increase. So I think the Swans are expecting the TPP and ASA totals to increase, possibly significantly, from 2017.

You could well be right in that it gives us a little more wriggle room.

The Tippett and Franklin deals could well come out as masterstrokes in that we were really taking a punt on the salary cap rising substantially for 2017 onwards. I guess we need to know the details before we offer a deal on the table to Tom. The most comforting thing of course is that apart from Tom we have pretty much the entire core of the squad locked

[Levii3]

Doesn't Jack also come out of contract end of this year? Also is Rohan really on 400k that seems way too high for him..

[dejavoodoo44]

Hmmm, perhaps our administrators should get in touch with the Hawthorn administrators, to find out how they keep all their star players and yet still have the money to go poaching every off season.

[Mug Punter]

Doesn't Jack also come out of contract end of this year? Also is Rohan really on 400k that seems way too high for him..

Jack is our only other significant player coming off contract I think but you'd think he'd be an easy re-sign provided the offer is thereabouts what he is on now.

Rohan could well be on less, but it was just meant to be an overall illustration that we have a fair bit of top end talent on good coin that makes for a squeeze down the bottom and I can see a lot of salary upgrades this year

[Mug Punter]

Hmmm, perhaps our administrators should get in touch with the Hawthorn administrators, to find out how they keep all their star players and yet still have the money to go poaching every off season.

The Melbourne clubs like the Hawks are at a real advantage to other clubs. They can legitimately afford to pay guys like Hodge about $500K a year (good money but well below what other clubs would offer) secure in the knowledge that the players know that by being in a premiership club they can, ermmm, win premierships but also by winning flags keep a high profile that will attract the huge endorsements available in Melbourne. And I'm sure the Hawks, very legally, make sure their players can access such opportunities. I'd bet if you add Hodge's contracts and non contract income (endorsements and TV work etc) he'd be in well over a mill a year. Also, and I think this is probably much more dodgy, I reckon clubs like the Hawks use their dodgy old boy coteries to add to line their players pockets with brown paper bags.

I don't think we at the Swans should really take too much offence at this because long term I can see the Swans players really benefitting off field too and they really have the Sydney market to themselves so long term this will help us. I feel sorry for clubs like the Lions and Suns though as it really outs them behind the 8 ball

[dejavoodoo44]

The Melbourne clubs like the Hawks are at a real advantage to other clubs. They can legitimately afford to pay guys like Hodge about $500K a year (good money but well below what other clubs would offer) secure in the knowledge that the players know that by being in a premiership club they can, ermmm, win premierships but also by winning flags keep a high profile that will attract the huge endorsements available in Melbourne. And I'm sure the Hawks, very legally, make sure their players can access such opportunities. I'd bet if you add Hodge's contracts and non contract income (endorsements and TV work etc) he'd be in well over a mill a year. Also, and I think this is probably much more dodgy, I reckon clubs like the Hawks use their dodgy old boy coteries to add to line their players pockets with brown paper bags.

I don't think we at the Swans should really take too much offence at this because long term I can see the Swans players really benefitting off field too and they really have the Sydney market to themselves so long term this will help us. I feel sorry for clubs like the Lions and Suns though as it really outs them behind the 8 ball

Yes, good points. And another reason why the northern academies were about equalization, and not an unfair advantage.
Though of course, the darker side of my nature, would love it if the Hawks were found out to be something like the Melbourne Storm of the AFL.

[goswannies]

I was just thinking about Tom's situation. If he wanted to be a long term Swans, & if he knew roughly what he wanted to earn over the combined duration of a long term contract(s), and if he is savvy with investing (and/or has a good/effective financial advisor) it might actually be to his financial advantage to have a front ended contract. Higher earning for him earlier in his career allows for better investment opportunities and compounded returns over a longer duration (ie if the cash is in his account now rather than in the Swans coffers until later when he peaks). Apart from current stagnation in eastern seaboard property markets, if property markets followed the historical upward trends, a front ended contract would allow for more cost effective property investment in the Sydney market too. If he knows what he wants to earn & the Swans are happy to pay it, the risk for him of a front ended contract is that he improves beyond his value. The risk to the Swans is an injury or Tom not fulfilling his potential.

Hmmm its late, so I'm not sure if that reasoning is logical

[Ludwig]

I was just thinking about Tom's situation. If he wanted to be a long term Swans, & if he knew roughly what he wanted to earn over the combined duration of a long term contract(s), and if he is savvy with investing (and/or has a good/effective financial advisor) it might actually be to his financial advantage to have a front ended contract. Higher earning for him earlier in his career allows for better investment opportunities and compounded returns over a longer duration (ie if the cash is in his account now rather than in the Swans coffers until later when he peaks). Apart from current stagnation in eastern seaboard property markets, if property markets followed the historical upward trends, a front ended contract would allow for more cost effective property investment in the Sydney market too. If he knows what he wants to earn & the Swans are happy to pay it, the risk for him of a front ended contract is that he improves beyond his value. The risk to the Swans is an injury or Tom not fulfilling his potential.

Hmmm its late, so I'm not sure if that reasoning is logical

Sounds like you've come down with the Matt80 virus.

Take 2 Petraccas and a cup of hot Carlisle at bedtime. You'll feel a lot better in the morning.

[Primmy]